The Riverside Group Limited (202303723)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303723

The Riverside Group Limited

24 October 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a collapsed boundary wall.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The property was a
3-bedroom semi-detached house with a garden. The tenancy started in January 2015 and ended on 1 August 2022. The resident lived with her 3 children. There were no reported vulnerabilities.
To the side of the resident’s back garden, there was a boundary wall, varying in height from 2.4m to approximately 3m. This ran along the full length of the garden and continued along the back of the gardens to neighbouring houses. The wall retained higher ground beyond the gardens. The land beyond the gardens was not owned by the landlord.
The resident has said that she reported concerns regarding the stability of the wall multiple times since the start of her tenancy. The landlord arranged surveys of the wall in May 2018 and April 2021, both of which identified that the wall was weathered, distorted and experiencing movement.
The wall collapsed on 12 April 2022. The resident went to stay temporarily with her mother. The landlord made 2 offers of temporary accommodation, which the resident declined. The landlord offered a new permanent property on 24 May, which the resident accepted. The new tenancy began on 1 August.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 28 May 2022, but this was not logged by the landlord. The resident complained again on 25 July. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reported concerns about the stability of the wall, and that the landlord did not provide suitable temporary accommodation. Although the landlord had offered a home loss payment, she wanted it to refund 7 years full rent, as she stated she did not have full use of the back garden during this time. She also wanted it to reimburse her for extra costs incurred whilst staying with her mother and pay compensation for its failings and the stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided on 18 August 2022. It said there had been no restrictions on the resident’s use of the garden until the wall fell down, and it was not legally responsible for the upkeep of the wall. It was satisfied it had acted appropriately since the wall collapsed by installing hoarding fences, offering temporary, and then permanent accommodation. It had redecorated and recarpeted the new property. It was prepared to pay the resident’s additional costs due to staying with her mother, as well as costs incurred by her mother. It would not pay disrepair compensation as it was not legally responsible for the wall.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 September 2022, said that it had previously commissioned reports on the stability of the wall, and to identify remedial work. Because it had not been able to establish who the wall belonged to it had been “challenging to find and agree a way forward.” Since the collapse of the wall, it had agreed access with the owners of the properties beyond the wall to carry out further investigation. It was still unclear who was responsible for the wall. It was unable to offer further financial redress.
On 28 April 2023 the resident asked this Service to investigate. She wanted the landlord to pay additional compensation in recognition of the potential risk of harm to herself and her children as a result of the landlord failing to carry out remedial work to the wall, and the impact on them of having to start again in a new home.
The resident is no longer a tenant of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In her correspondence the resident has said that she has raised concerns with the landlord about the stability of the wall since the start of her tenancy. The landlord was aware that the wall was weathered, distorted and experiencing movement from at least the report of first survey of the wall, on 31 May 2018. It has said its repair records only go back to 25 February 2019, and it has no record of the resident raising a repair from that date up until the date the wall collapsed. However, it accepts that the resident may have discussed concerns regarding the wall with its asset officer, who has left the organisation. The resident first raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of this matter on 28 May 2022.
When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider what is fair in all the circumstances, including whether the matters should have been raised as complaints to the landlord and escalated to our Service at an earlier stage to receive a determination. This is to ensure that events can be clearly recalled, and that appropriate evidence will still be available to support the investigation.
For this reason, it is not fair to either party to consider matters that have not been escalated previously all the way back to the start of the tenancy. Therefore, after careful consideration, the decision has been taken to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matter back to 1 April 2021, when the report of the second survey of the wall was issued. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made for context only.

Boundary wall

Landlord’s have an obligation under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the property fit for human habitation and free from hazards. Under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the landlord owes a duty to occupiers to take such care as is reasonable, to see that they are reasonably safe from personal injury due to any defects in the premises.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy said that it would keep in repair boundary walls and fences that were present at the start of the tenancy. The policy stated that the landlord sought to avoid any health and safety concerns for its customers and others.
In May 2018 the landlord instructed a property and construction consultant to inspect the wall and provide a report. The wall was noted to be in poor condition, with “significantly weathered and distorted” brickwork, and “indications of bulging [suggesting] …the original wall [was] experiencing movement.” The landlord had erected a temporary fence to prevent/restrict access to the immediate vicinity of the wall. The report made recommendations for further investigations to better define the construction of the wall and condition of the foundations. It was recommended the temporary fence should be retained.
No evidence has been seen by this Service that the landlord took any further steps following on from the May 2018 report. It is unknown whether the fence remained in place, and if so, for how long.
A visual survey of the wall was commissioned by the landlord in April 2021. This was undertaken from one of the gardens of the neighbouring properties as access could not be gained to the other affected properties. This reiterated the findings of the previous inspection. There was no mention of a temporary fence restricting access to the immediate vicinity of the wall.
The survey report noted that the landlord was not the designated owner and the residents of the properties at the higher level also denied ownership. Recommendations were made for works to restore stability to the wall, although the report stated it was unclear how much work could be undertaken, given the lack of clarity regarding ownership.
Following on from the April 2021 survey, there is no evidence that the landlord:
1. Carried out a risk assessment.
2. Conducted any further investigation.
3. Carried out any work to restore stability to the wall.
4. Put in place any temporary measures to mitigate against the potential collapse of the wall.
5. Put in place any measures to safeguard residents should the wall collapse.
6. Took any steps to establish ownership of the wall.
The landlord therefore failed to respond appropriately, or at all, to a significant risk to life affecting its tenants. It failed to take appropriate actions to ensure the property was free of hazards and that the resident and her children were reasonably safe from personal injury.
There was also a further failure to fulfil its responsive repairs policy standards of keeping in repair boundary walls present since the start of the tenancy and avoiding health and safety concerns for its tenants. As a result the resident and her children were left at significant risk to life. The resident reported to this Service that the use and enjoyment of her garden was reduced due to concern the wall may collapse. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family.
The wall collapsed on 12 April 2022. The resident and her children were not at home at the time. The landlord telephoned her to tell her what had happened. As the wall was in a state of uncontrolled collapse, the resident was told that it was not safe for her to stay at the property. She arranged to stay temporarily with her mother. She has said that having to leave her home at short notice in these circumstances was traumatic, upsetting and stressful for her and her children. Whilst it was extremely fortunate that the resident and her children were not at home when the wall collapsed, the collapse of the wall caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s decant procedure stated that if a property was “deemed to be unlivable” then the landlord must secure emergency accommodation for the resident using the following hierarchy:
1. Empty Home.
2. Ready to Let Riverside Home.
3. Empty Home, Ready to Let Non-Riverside Home.
4. Family and/or friends.
5. Hotel/Bed & Breakfast Accommodation.
The procedure said that in emergency situations it was most likely the landlord would seek to accommodate the resident with family or friends or in hotel/B&B accommodation. As soon as reasonably practicable, that is within one working day, it would make efforts to secure a more appropriate form of accommodation, “, i.e., moving from hotel accommodation into an empty home where possible.” The procedure said that the landlord would work with residents to secure appropriate accommodation, and residents would be consulted at every stage. The landlord would complete a ‘decant questionnaire’ before any move, to identify housing needs and support required.
The procedure also said that the landlord would make disturbance payments throughout the course of a temporary decant to minimise the financial impact to residents, with any expenses paid no later than 4 weeks of submission/approval. It would make home loss payments, where applicable, within 4 weeks of a permanent decant taking place.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of a decant questionnaire completed with/by the resident, but this is undated, so it is not possible to assess whether this was completed within a reasonable period. The questionnaire set out the size and make-up of the resident’s family and the locations that were suitable in terms of proximity to the children’s schools and family support. No disabilities or health needs were noted.
On 21 April 2022 the landlord booked temporary accommodation for the resident, which was available to her from 25 April. The booking was made 6 working days after the resident went to stay with her mother, with the accommodation available for occupation 2 working days after that. This was not within the timescale set out within the landlord’s procedure and was therefore a failing on the part of the landlord. No evidence has been seen by this Service that the landlord consulted the resident before making the booking, which was not in line with its procedure.
On arrival at the temporary accommodation on 25 April 2022, the resident was dissatisfied with the condition of the property. She stated that the accommodation was dirty and smelly. The landlord’s stage 1 response says it contacted the accommodation provider who offered to clean the property and clear away rubbish the following day, but the resident declined the property and decided to continue staying with her mother. The resident does not dispute that the landlord arranged for the property to be cleaned. On that basis, the landlord acted reasonably and there is no evidence that the resident raised any other concerns regarding the suitability of the accommodation.
On 24 May 2022 the landlord offered the resident a new permanent property. It agreed to arrange for the property to be recarpeted and redecorated, to cover the cost of removals and arrange disconnection/connection of appliances, which was appropriate. The resident confirmed that she would accept the property on or after 13 June.
On 5 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident updating her that it had installed a hoarding fence in her rear garden and had completed surveys of the collapsed boundary wall. It would next carry out a full ground inspection. It confirmed:
1. She was not liable for rent for the old property from 18 April, the date when it was deemed unsafe for her to remain.
2. It would consider reimbursing her for costs incurred whilst staying with her mother and asked for proof of these where possible.
3. It would make a Home Loss payment after the new tenancy began.
It was appropriate that the landlord clarified that the resident was not liable for rent, offered disturbance payments, and a home loss payment. However, by this point the resident had been staying with her mother for nearly 3 months. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not clarify the position regarding the rent and offer disturbance payments much sooner.
On 18 July 2022 the resident asked the landlord for an “urgent update” on the new property as her mother needed her to leave by the weekend. The landlord responded on 20 July saying she could view the property again the following week and a moving date would be agreed then. It asked her which large items of furniture she wanted to take, so that it could arrange removals.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord by email on 25 July 2022. She stated that she had submitted a complaint via the landlord’s online portal on 28 May but the landlord said it had never received this. The resident complained that:
1. She had been unable to fully use her garden throughout the tenancy due to the boundary wall being unsafe.
2. The landlord did not act following reports from structural engineers saying the wall was dangerous.
3. Having to leave at short notice and stay temporarily with her mother after the wall collapsed on 12 April was traumatic, upsetting and stressful. Her children had initially had to sleep on the floor.
4. The landlord took 2 weeks to offer temporary accommodation. It was dirty and smelly. It said it would find alternative temporary accommodation, but nothing suitable was offered.
5. She was still staying with her mother who had had to buy extra beds and bedding.
6. The whole experience had been stressful, and the landlord had not shown compassion.
7. Food in the freezer at the property had been lost due to there being no electricity, there were ants in the property, her belongings were damp.
8. She was still paying bills for the property as she had been advised to do so.
9. She had incurred extra costs for travel due to the distance of her mother’s home from the children’s schools.
10. She was still waiting to be permanently rehoused.
11. In addition to the £7,300 home loss payment the landlord had offered she wanted compensation for:
  1. “Breach of contract,” and errors made by the landlord.
  2. Stress and inconvenience.
  3. Extra travel and childcare costs.
  4. Furniture which was ruined.
  5. Refund of 7 years of full rent when she could not use the garden.
  6. Household bills she had paid over the last 3 months, including phone calls to the landlord.
  7. Her mother’s costs as a result of her and her children staying there, including beds, mattresses, and fuel costs.
Between 26 and 28 July 2022 the landlord offered alternative temporary accommodation but the resident turned this down due to the location and poor reviews for the property. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord offered further temporary accommodation, this happened too late, given that the resident told it on 18 July that her mother needed her to leave by the weekend.
As the landlord has not provided details of the property offered it is not possible to say whether this was within the locations the resident had said would be suitable. The resident sent the landlord details of a property she had seen advertised, but the landlord said that this could not be provided as properties had to be booked through a particular booking system. No evidence has been seen as to why it would have been reasonable for the landlord to restrict itself to only one booking system in this way.
The resident’s tenancy of the new property began on 1 August 2022.
On 16 August 2022 the resident provided the landlord with a breakdown of her additional costs incurred. These included:
1. Household bills paid for the empty property.
2. Reimbursement for items lost/damaged due to the collapse of the wall.
3. Fuel and childcare costs due to the distance of her mother’s home from the children’s schools.
4. Cost of removal van.
5. Her mother’s costs to buy new beds and bedding.

The resident did not provide a total monetary figure claimed.

On 17 August 2022 the landlord completed payment instruction forms for a Home Loss payment broken down as follows:
1. Home loss payment of £7,100 (minus rent arrears of £1,053.16) = £6046.84 to be paid direct to resident’s bank account.
2. Payment to clear remaining rent arrears £1,545.15 (from 18 April to 31 July 2022) which the resident was not liable for.

It also asked the resident for clarification regarding her costs, including bank statements.

The landlord’s decant procedure acknowledged that it had a regulatory responsibility to grant Home Loss payments where residents are required to move to allow their home to be redeveloped or improved, using the same criteria as local authorities. The relevant regulations at the time were The Home Loss Payments (Prescribed Amounts) (England) Regulations 2022, which stated that the prescribed amount of home loss payment was £7,800. Therefore, the Home Loss payment of £7,100 was too low in relation to the regulatory requirements.
The landlord provided stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 18 August 2022. The landlord said that:
1. There had been no restrictions on the use of the resident’s garden until the wall fell down.
2. It had no record that the resident had raised any repair jobs relating to the wall, although it acknowledged she may have discussed the matter with its asset manager, who had now left the organisation.
3. Although a non-intrusive survey was carried out in May 2018, “it [had] not been determined that [the landlord was] legally responsible for the upkeep of [the] wall,” and therefore, further investigation was not carried out.
4. The wall had collapsed due to private homeowners putting a heavy load on top of the wall, which was outside of the landlord’s control. It was “not able to legally enforce the actions of private homeowners.”
5. It apologised and acknowledged that the collapse of the wall had been traumatic for the resident and her family. It had taken immediate action by installing hoarding fences.
6. It outlined the efforts it had made to provide temporary accommodation and said that the resident had ultimately decided to stay with her mother and instructed it not to find any other temporary accommodation.
7. Its actions had showed it was compassionate and responsive.
8. It offered a permanent property on 24 May 2022. There was a delay as it had recarpeted and redecorated the property at the request of the resident.
9. It had reimbursed the resident for the cost of removals, was in the process of agreeing a disturbance payment with her and reimbursing her mother’s costs.
10. It was not able to pay disrepair compensation as it was not responsible for the upkeep of the wall.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the collapse of the wall had been traumatic for the resident and apologised for this. However, it read as dismissive that the landlord did not acknowledge that the resident would have had limited enjoyment of the garden due to safety concerns about the unstable wall.
The landlord failed to acknowledge that it had a responsibility under its responsive repairs policy to keep the wall in repair, avoid health and safety concerns for residents, and therefore to investigate ownership of the wall if this was unclear. Furthermore, as well as informal contact with the homeowners who placed a heavy load on top of the wall, there were a range of legal options available to it if they had not agreed to remove the load. The stage 1 response therefore failed to take responsibility for the landlord’s lack of action to repair the wall and take actions to prevent the collapse.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 28 and 30 August 2022. She stated that the landlord was aware of the poor condition of the wall and could and should have taken actions to prevent it from collapsing and to protect tenants.
On 21 September 2022 the landlord chased the resident for the further information it had requested regarding her costs. This was appropriate so that it could determine the amount of the disturbance payment. The resident provided the information on 9 October. On 24 October the landlord agreed to pay £1,500 for “disturbance costs.” It did not explain how the amount was arrived at or breakdown how much had been allocated for each item, so it has not been possible to assess the appropriateness of this payment.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 September 2022. This stated that:
1. It had previously commissioned reports on the wall but as it was not able to identify who the wall belonged to it had been “challenging to find and agree a way forward.”
2. Since the collapse of the wall, it had agreed access with the owners of the properties beyond the wall to carry out further investigation. It was still unclear who was responsible for the wall.
3. It acknowledged the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident, that “the situation could have been far worse,” and apologised for this.
4. It was not able to offer further financial redress as the resident had full use of the garden up to the moment the wall collapsed.
It was appropriate that the stage 2 response acknowledged the severity of the risk to the resident and her children, the inconvenience and distress she had experienced, and apologised for this. However, it still did not acknowledge that the landlord was responsible under its responsive repairs policy to keep the wall in repair, avoid health and safety concerns for residents, and therefore that it should have been proactive in investigating ownership of the wall. The landlord’s financial redress and compensation procedure allowed for it to pay compensation “as an apology,” in addition to financial redress, where the landlord had failed to provide a service or meet its service standards. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not consider providing compensation to the resident in relation to its failures.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at stage 2, and on 28 April 2023 she asked this Service to investigate.
Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the stability of the wall, and response when it collapsed overall, there were multiple failings, including:
1. Failure to take appropriate actions in response to the April 2021 survey, including:
  1. Failure to carry out a risk assessment.
  2. Failure to conduct any further investigation.
  3. Failure to carry out any work to restore stability to the wall.
  4. Failure to put in place any temporary measures to mitigate against the potential collapse of the wall.
  5. Failure to put in place any measures to safeguard residents should the wall collapse.
  6. Failure to investigate ownership of the wall.
2. Disregard of its duty to ensure the property was free of hazards and that the resident and her children were reasonably safe from personal injury.
3. Failure to fulfil its responsive repairs policy standards of keeping in repair boundary walls present since the start of the tenancy and avoiding health and safety concerns for its tenants.
4. Dismissive response to the points raised by the resident about the risk of harm to herself and her children.
5. It did not act quickly enough to secure temporary accommodation for the resident.
6. It delayed offering disturbance payments.
7. The Home Loss payment was too low in relation to the regulatory requitement.

Cumulatively, the above failings constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord. The landlord’s failings had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. This included including living with fear of significant risk to life over an extended period, distress and inconvenience when the wall collapsed, and the loss of their family home. The landlord has refunded the rent for the time the resident was unable to occupy, made a Home Loss payment, and a disturbance payment. Had the landlord not made these payments there would have been a finding of severe maladministration.
When considering redress we consider the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. The redress offered does not fully put things right for the resident who has been significantly impacted by the failures identified in this report. Therefore the landlord is ordered apologise and pay £1000 compensation, which is in line with the remedies guidance where there has been a permanent impact on the resident. The landlord has also been ordered to pay the resident the difference between the Home Loss payment made, and the amount prescribed by the regulations.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s customer feedback procedure stated that on receipt of a complaint it would contact the customer by 5pm the next working day to acknowledge this. The “complaint owner” would agree a resolution timeline with the resident. Once the investigation had been carried out a resolution plan would be communicated to the resident within 5 working days. If further actions were required to resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction, a new deadline would be agreed, and the actions were to be completed within 10 working days. Although the procedure said that it was mandatory to respond to stage 1 complaints in writing, no timescale was given for this.
This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) current at the time, which required a complaint to be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and responded to in full within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally landlords could explain why further time would be needed, and provide a clear timeframe for a response, not exceeding a further 10 working days without good reason. Extensions beyond 20 working days had to be agreed by both parties.
On 28 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord informing it that she had submitted a complaint via its website. The landlord did not log or acknowledge the complaint. This was poor complaint handling and led to a delay in the resident getting a final response and being able to refer to this Service. The landlord ultimately apologised for this at stage 1 and said that it had since established a complaint handling team which focused on logging complaints promptly. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged and showed learning from its mistake.
The resident sent a further complaint by email on 25 July 2022. The landlord telephoned the resident to discuss the complaint on 26 July and acknowledged this by email, on 27 July. This gave a detailed complaint definition and a target date for resolution of 1 August. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s procedure and the Code. However, the landlord sent a further email on 28 July stating that it would respond to the complaint by 8 August. Providing 2 different dates by which the resident would receive a response was confusing and showed a lack of care in complaints handling.
The stage 1 response was late, issued on 18 August 2022, 16 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. This was outside of the timeframe given by the landlord and the Code. The landlord did not contact the resident regarding an extension of time, which was a failing. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 August saying it was waiting for her to provide a breakdown of her costs, and once received it could provide a written response to the stage 1 complaint. However, the landlord could have provided a response without this information and this was therefore an unnecessary delay.
The stage 1 response showed empathy, by acknowledging that the collapse of the wall has been a very traumatic experience for the resident and her family. This was appropriate. However, the landlord failed to take responsibility and apologise for its failings. It therefore failed to resolve the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s customer feedback procedure stated that on receipt of a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 it would contact the customer by 5pm the next working day to discuss resolution of the complaint. It would communicate its decision to the customer within 10 working days of the request to move to Stage 2, either by phone, email or letter. If the communication was by phone, it would provide written confirmation.
The Code required landlords to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Landlords could explain why further time would be needed, and provide a clear timeframe for a response, not exceeding a further 10 working days without good reason. Extensions beyond 10 working days had to be agreed by both parties.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 27 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged this in writing on 30 August, giving a detailed complaint definition and a target date for resolution of 13 September. No record has been seen that it contacted the customer by 5pm the next working day after her complaint to discuss resolution of the complaint, as required by its procedure.
The stage 2 response was provided on 23 September 2022. This was outside of the timeframe within the landlord’s procedure, but within the 20 working days allowed by the Code. As at stage 1, the response showed empathy but failed to take responsibility and apologise for the landlord’s failings. It therefore failed to resolve the resident’s complaint.
Considering the landlord’s complaint handling overall:
1. It failed to log and acknowledge the complaint when it was first made.
2. The stage 1 response was late.
3. The stage 2 response was outside of the timeframe set out in the landlord’s procedure, but in line with the requirements of the Code.
4. The landlord failed to take responsibility and apologise for its failings in maintaining the wall and preventing the collapse.

Cumulatively, this constitutes maladministration on the part of the landlord. The landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay £200 compensation to the resident in recognition of this.

Although the timescales in the landlord’s procedure current at the time were not in line with the Code, the landlord has since updated its policy, which is now in line with the Code. Therefore, no order has been made to this effect.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a collapsed boundary wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1,900, broken down as follows:
  1. £1,000 for the resident’s significant inconvenience and distress, arising from its handling of her concerns about the collapsed boundary wall.
  2. £200 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
  3. £700 to make up the shortfall between the Home Loss payment made and the amount prescribed by the regulations.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme, the landlord must undertake a review of learning from this case. Specific attention should be given to:
1. Follow-up action upon receipt of surveys.
2. Ensuring properties are free from hazards and that residents are reasonably safe from personal injury.
3. Communication with the resident and acknowledgement of health and safety concerns.
4. Implementation of decant procedure.
5. When and how it will incorporate the findings of the review into its day-to-day operations.

The landlord must share a written report of the review with the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.